Friday, February 15, 2013

In Defense of Bisexuality

In Defense of Bisexuality & Why It is a Natural and Socially Beneficial Sexual Orientation

It is true that one might utilize the argument that only members of opposite genders may reproduce in a natural manner, and the argument can be made that this is the sole purpose of sexual activity, but to do so means that one must consider there to be no other purpose for sexual activity and that any means of sexual activity outside of that very small exception are unnatural in themselves. Kissing, caressing, licking, and other forms of sexual affection, as well as masturbation, oral and anal sex would all have to be considered unnatural sexual activities if one holds to this argument and philosophical position. Birth control would also have to be considered unnatural (including the ingestion of plants that naturally cause abortion), and a very extreme position would have to be taken to truly believe in and hold to this position on the nature of sexual activity.

I do not believe most reasonable people could truly take the aforementioned position on the nature and purpose of sexual activity, nor do I believe the evidence provided by Nature supports such a narrow viewpoint. In fact, nature shows us that kissing, caressing, many forms of sexual affection, masturbation, oral and anal sex are all wholly abundant and rampant throughout the animal kingdom, meaning they are both natural and normal forms of sexual expression and stimulation. Since this is so, it therefore follows, that Nature does not support the idea that sexual activity is merely for reproductive purposes. In fact, Nature appears to show that most sexual activity is initiated, guided, and driven by both the quest for self-pleasure and emotional and social interaction.

If Nature provides overwhelming evidence for various forms of sexual activity which cannot support and do not directly promote reproduction, then it logically follows that all forms of sexual activity are not designed or intended for such a purpose, but rather that some, indeed most forms of sexual activity, are designed and intended for non-reproductive purposes; and if they are intended for non-reproductive purposes, then the argument assuming that only sexual activity between members of opposite genders is natural and correct because of the necessity of both genders in reproduction becomes invalid and illogical. This is so because:

1. Oral sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than oral sex among members of opposite genders in that all the necessary components are there and the idea that all forms of oral sexual activity should take place between members of the opposite gender is merely a social construct or personal preference with no basis in nature or reality. Oral sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider oral sex itself to be.

2. Anal sex between two male members is no less natural than anal sex between a male and a female in that, once again, all the necessary components are there for the precise same sort of sexual activity, and the concept that all anal sexual activity should only take place between members of the opposite gender is, once again, merely a social construct or personal preference with no basis in nature or reality. Furthermore, anal sex between two females is no less natural than anal sex between a female and a male, where the female takes the active rather than passive role. Anal sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider anal sex itself to be.

3. Kissing, caressing, and showing forms of sexual affection to the same gender is no less natural than kissing, caressing, and the showing of sexual affection to a member of the opposite gender, in that all the necessary components for indirect sexual stimulation and affection are present and capable of fulfilling the exact same purpose. Hugging, licking, petting, or passionately kissing a member of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider those forms of sexual affection to be in the first place.

It seems obvious to me that many forms of sexual activity are natural and for various reasons, some of which are not supportive of the idea that sexual activity is meant for the sole purpose of reproduction. However, of all forms of sexual activity, I do believe that the case can be made that anal sex is unnatural (in all cases) in that it almost always does immediate damage to the recipient, but this position can only be taken if one has concluded that immediate harm to the self is never a natural and acceptable condition of both self pleasure and social as well as emotional interaction. Such an argument could only be helped by evidence for permanent damage caused by either all forms or certain forms of anal sex. That is it! In my mind there is no other argument which could ever be leveled against any form of sexual activity which makes any logical sense other than that just mentioned concerning sodomy.

Personally, I believe sodomy and other forms of anal sex to be natural forms of sexual expression, but unfortunately I must admit I do not have any solid arguments for this sort of reasoning, at this time, at least in the form of arguments involving Nature.

I believe the evidence for heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual activity in Nature is overwhelming and very prevalent. All three forms of sexual activity are rampant everywhere within Nature and are therefore natural; however, I do not believe this is where the crux of the debate lies – it is actually a moral and social issue, which makes it not a debate as to whether or not certain forms of sexual activity and orientation are natural, but whether or not they are good for both society and the spiritual nature of humankind.

Perhaps the greatest argument against homosexuality (not necessarily bisexuality) is that it is a form of sexual activity which is harmful to the social organism, in that it does not promote or provide reproduction, which is essential to the continued evolution of a society. Fortunately, I do not need to confront this issue, as a true bisexual sexual orientation does not harm society in any way; in fact, the argument can be made, and will be made by me, that bisexuality is more helpful to society than either strict heterosexuality or strict homosexuality.

Bisexuality promotes both reproduction and birth control, which are both essential to an efficient and workable society. Bisexuality promotes birth control merely because it does not, by nature, view all sexual activity as for the sole purpose of reproduction, and it promotes reproduction because it certainly does not exclude the natural sexual intercourse of both genders which enables reproduction. In other words, true bisexuality does the very best and most efficient job for not only the individual (it provides the greatest options for sexual pleasure) but also the society (it provides and promotes the dual need of growth and control of growth within a society). In my mind, bisexuality is clearly the best option for any society and the greatest form of individual sexual expression provided by nature.

Furthermore, a true bisexuality is, it seems to me, the most beneficial means of social and emotional interaction, in that it allows for the greatest possible human expression and emotional interaction within any society, which can only promote and drive cohesion and commitment. What sort of evidences can be leveled against the natural existence of bisexual activity and orientation, or against the social utility and practicality of bisexuality? Much more could be said under either nature or society against strict heterosexuality or homosexuality than could ever be said of bisexuality. From the greatest logical viewpoint as well as very human and emotional viewpoint, bisexuality provides the greatest and most efficient means for all things which sexual expression and sexual necessity demand on both the natural and societal levels.

Bisexual expression promotes the greatest form of human expression in love and interaction, it aids in birth control, it promotes natural sexual behavior, it supports and promotes the natural drive for self replication, it provides the greatest spectrum of variation in experience and pleasure, it provides a great form of individual liberty and the expression thereof, it, by nature, promotes the concept of polyamory and open relationships which are arguably the best form of relationship for over-all social unity and natural selection. It is, in my mind, clearly the most natural and socially beneficial form of sexual expression and interaction. That is not to say that if one feels they should be strictly heterosexual or homosexual that they are somehow wrong or inferior, but that bisexuality seems to make the most sense in all truly intellectual examinations concerning nature, society, and sexual orientation and expression.

To me, bisexuality is the norm, and all other forms of sexual expression and orientation are either personal norms or social constructs. I believe the evidence and logical arguments overwhelmingly support bisexuality among non androgynous species. In fact, the very existence of androgynous species seems to promote bisexuality in nature by itself!

Should a male choose to sexually please or interact with a male, or a female choose to do such with a female, or a male and female choose to do such with one another, the natural evidence as well as the societal evidence seem to indicate to me that all of these choices are equaly valid, natural, and beneficial; however, the restriction of these forms of sexual activity to a specific "rightness" may arguably be considered harmful to the individual, the preservation of nature, and the benefit of all societies. In other words, to say that only men belong with women, men with men or women with women, is to say that only certain "kinds" of the same species belong interacting with each other in certain ways. Such a world view is ridiculous and the heart of bigotry, prejudice, and racism.

Granted, there is a strong argument against interspecies sexual expression (for those who prefer extremist positions and who will make bisexuality into total pan-sexuality), and I do not deny this or even attempt to argue against such, but species specific bisexual activity and sexual diversity is an entirely different matter. There really is no good argument against species specific pan-sexual activity on either the natural or social level. Bisexuality, seems to me, very human, very natural, and very socially beneficial. To go beyond the species specific level is to go beyond the initial examination and invalidates any argument against bisexual behavior, as it no longer becomes merely a question of bisexual expression but interspecies expression, which is an entirely different argument. Likewise, raising concerns of age and consent is not specific to the argument, and sex with minors of the opposite gender is not normally considered a sexual orientation specific debate, so why should any form of bisexuality concerning minors be included in the debate of the best and most proper or natural form of sexual expression?

It seems to me, that if there is a natural and normal form of sexual orientation and a correct and beneficial form of social sexual expression and activity, then bisexuality is the most natural and logical fit. In other words, in my mind, everyone is and should be bisexual to one degree or another dependent upon their individual needs and preferences. No other form of sexual expression provides the optimum means for self-pleasure, self-preservation, social interaction, the fulfillment of social and individual needs, and the greatest spectrum for the adequate expression of human emotion and interaction.

I am bisexual and this is the basis of my argument in defense of myself and those like me. Bisexuality is as normal and natural as it gets, in my opinion, and I really don't think any truly intellectual arguments can ever disprove that fact. If a male or female wish to be true to themselves they should, in my opinion, embrace and commit to their bisexuality, even if they have a preference in gender for whatever psychological or biological reasons. In fact, for homosexuals or heterosexuals to say we (bisexuals) are confused is more assinine than saying we are confused in our breathing – such people deny reality, in my opinion. If anyone is more right, it is the bisexuals, but I do not say bisexuality is the only and right way – only that if one must be, it must logically and socially be at least equivalent.

Bisexuality makes natural sense and it makes social sense. It is the greatest form of human emotional expression and love for other humans. Bisexuality benefits both the individual and their society on many levels. The only obsticle to true bisexual expression is the concept of monogamy, and consequently, it may just be monogamy which makes certain people believe one must either be homosexual or heterosexual and not ever bisexual. However, I will leave this debate to a later discussion on the natural and social truth and benefits of polyamory and open-social relationships – one I hope to take up at a later date.

Bisexuality is natural in that it is a great expression given from one to another, regardless of gender, it seeks to provide great pleasure and emotional interaction to all for all, and it helps society to both evolve through reproduction, and stabilize due to non-reproductive sexual behaviors. It is really the best of both worlds – balanced, harmonious, and beneficial!

Furthermore, it seems to me that members of the opposite gender, unless severely mentally wrecked by distorted social norms, always find the sexual interaction between members of the same gender sexually appealing and arousing. I submit that this is so because it is not only natural for both genders to show bisexual sexual expressions, but because it is natural for both genders to be sexually aroused by bisexual activity – we find it both normal and appealing unless taught otherwise by society. Even supposedly homosexuals will find sexual expression between a male and a female arousing unless taught to think otherwise! Likewise, supposed heterosexuals will always find the homosexual behavior of at least the opposite gender sexually arousing unless indoctrinated to feel otherwise. Can a man who loves seeing two women in an act of sexual expression be considered truly heterosexual, or a woman witnessing two men in an act of sexual expression, who finds it appealing, be considered truly heterosexual? How could a true heterosexual find a homosexual act appealing? And what supposed heterosexual would not find a homosexual act of the opposite gender appealing without social standards telling them they should not? Furthermore, what supposed homosexual could witness a heterosexual act and not be aroused in some manner or form unless they were taught or told they should not find such appealing?

I could be wrong, which makes things all that much more complicated, and I apolgize if my incorrect analysis insults you, but this is simply how I see it, and it does not detract from the force of my arguments – there is a place for bisexuality.

There are many arguments against bisexuality from both heterosexuals snd homosexuals – why I do not know. It seems that they both fear something in admitting it is normal and natural; however, I feel it is the normal and natural function of myself, so I offer this defense and argument. I believe all men and women are inherently bisexual and should be. I believe we, all humans should accept and learn to live with our bisexuality, regardless of which gender, if any, we prefer. I believe bisexuality is extremely beneficial to all individuals and to the progress of society. I further believe that anyone who denies their bisexuality denies their own human nature, which is bad for Nature and society, and such an attitude should be quietly observed and of concern to others (as it is not natural). We should not deny the feelings of those who feel they are strictly heterosexual or homosexual, but we should fear those positions if a bigoted and prejudice spin is being promoted by those individuals.

I realize I am in the supposed minority, but I believe this is all social show and most believe as I do, especially since the natural evidence and logic falls in the favor of those who think like me. So I present this argument here in the hopes that it will be spread forth either in its eintirety or in various personal forms. I give permission this instant for anyone to use this article in its entirety for whatever purpose or argument they choose, especially those who feel as I do and who wish to promote the validity of bisexuality!

I love both males and females equally, and I do not think this wrong, abnormal, or socially destructive. I think sexual expression to both men and women is moral and right, and I see no good argument against it. I believe we should all embrace our bisexuality, express it, and promote it. I think all social concepts against bisexuality or in thinking that a male is less manly or a female is less womanly because they practice bisexual behavior is insane, illogical, and bad for society and the ultimate preservation of nature.

Bisexuality is true human sexuality and I promote and support it.

Saturday, February 2, 2013

The Natural Rights of All

These are the natural rights of all living things:

1. All conscious beings are born with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and any culture/society/civilization which attempts to hinder this beyond natural bounds is not only regressive, but criminal and terroristic in nature.

2. All living creatures, by virtue of their nature and existence, have a natural right to the free access, foraging, and harvesting of organic food for the sustainment, growth, nutrition and health of their individual mind and body. If a society must take possession of land in order to acquire what it deems as “progress” it does not have a right to do so in such a way that all living creatures may not exercise their natural right to such free access and use of organic medicines and foods. Furthermore, such activities of “progress” have a moral and ecological duty to give back to the Earth and all of its inhabitants a greater or equal share of free resources than what it took to acquire “progress”, or such activities may not be considered, by any right, to be a form of “progress”, but rather are and should be deemed theft and rape.

3. All living creatures have a natural right to hunt, fish, and/or harness other life forms, by virtue and in accordance with their nature and existence in such an unregulated manner as to allow the full sustainment of their individual livelihood in a free and unhindered manner. If a society/culture/civilization attempts to regulate this to the point where such cannot be done freely both inside and outside of society and/or in accordance with nature it amounts to regress of nature and is the equivalent of rape and theft.

4. All living creatures, capable by their very nature and existence, of acquiring and storing food and water for individual use in a natural manner which accords with their natural existance, within and for a definitive time frame in accordance with natural cycles in which such is plainly and absolutely necessary is entitled to do so, by nature, and any hinderance and attempt to control such a right is unnatural, anti-life, and pro-authoritarian.

5. All living creatures, by virtue of their nature and existence, have a natural right to free access and use of freshwater and saltwater resources for the purposes of self-sustainment, nutrition, hygiene, and medicinal application.

6. All living creatures, regardless of gender, but in accordance with natural processes, have the natural right to uncontrolled reproduction and/or the natural means of birth control and reproduction which are available by means of nature up to the point of actual birth.

7. All living creatures have a right to acquire, build, and utlilize natural means of shelter and warmth, according to their capability, without social/cultural/civil influence so long as such means are not a voluntary part of the society/culture/civilzation (meaning the individual being can opt entirely out if they so choose and are capable of such a choice). If such cannot be done without risk to society/culture/civilization, by virtue of intellect, the society/culture/civilization must be considered inferior, unadaptable, and flawed, as a superior form of existence should always be capable of existing without controlling or tampering with the supposed inferiority of a lesser state of existence. How can one claim "progress" if they must control (beyond their own individual and direct influence) what nature already declared favorable and evolved in accordance with local and natural ecological standards as a whole?

8. All living creatures have a natural right, by their very nature and existence, to the total, complete, and unrestricted freedom of movement in accordance with their natural abilities and knowledge, and no society/culture/civilization has a right to restrict such movement in members who have not volunteered to relinquish it.

9. All living creatures, especially those who require it, have a natural right to free and unhindered access to sunlight in accordance with nature and natural phenomena.

10. All living creatures have a natural right, in accordance with their very nature and existence, to the free use and access of natural and local resources, in accordance with their current individual needs, without hinderance, so long as such living creatures have not volunteered to give up such rights on behalf of a society/culture/civlization (meaning they can freely opt out). If any society/culture/civilization feels the need to hinder such access to involuntary members, such a society/culture/civlization is clearly inferior to the natural process and should be considered totalitarian and clearly flawed in character, outlook, and initiative.

11. All living creatures have a right, by virtue and in accordance with their nature and existence, to free and mutual association. Attempting to control the associations of any creature is an attempt to control that very creature, and amounts to ecological, individual, and social "regress" not "progress".

12. All living creatures, by virtue of the realization and knowledge of self-identity inherent in humans, have a right to their own body and mind. Furthermore, if we are to expect recognition and respect for the guidance of our own vessel we should do the same for all others by virtue of the same reasoning.

13. All living creatures, by their very nature and existance, have a natural right to defend all the rights which they deem existent in whatever manner they are capable of doing in accordance with their own individual nature and through their own individual actions.

14. All living creatures, through free association, have a natural right, in accordance with their individual means and existence, to choose to participate in or not participate in a human-made and manufactured society/culture/civilization, and not to be unnaturally hindered or punished for such a free decision.

15. All living creatures, in accordance with their nature and existence, have a right to free expression, free protest, free thought, and free belief by very nature of their ability to do or have such.

16. All living creatures have a natural right to legislate their own constitution and to reap the pleasures or suffer the consequences of the decisions they make in accordance with their core beliefs and principles.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of natural rights, but a list which is fair, level-headed and aware of natural phenomena as well as man's respective place in the environment. In this list a 'right' is defined as that which comes from nature and does not require social or political influence in order to sustain it as a right.